ERIC EJ931970: Assessing the Social Acceptability of the Functional Analysis of Problem Behavior

2011·0.1 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2011, 44, 403–407 NUMBER2 (SUMMER2011)
ASSESSING THE SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY OF THE FUNCTIONAL
ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM BEHAVIOR
PAUL LANGTHORNE AND PETER MCGILL
UNIVERSITYOFKENT
Althoughtheclinicalutilityofthefunctionalanalysisiswellestablished,itssocialacceptability
hasreceivedminimalattention.Thecurrentstudyassessedthesocialacceptabilityoffunctional
analysis procedures among 10 parents and 3 teachers of children who had recently received
functional analyses. Participants completed a 9-item questionnaire, and results suggested that
functional analysisprocedures weresociallyacceptable.
Keywords: functional analysis, social acceptability, social validity
_______________________________________________________________________________
Social validity has been defined as the social Although social acceptability has been
significance of behavioral goals, the social examined for behavioral interventions, only a
appropriateness of treatment procedures, and handful of studies have assessed the social
the social importance of the resulting behavior acceptability of functional assessment methods
change (Wolf, 1978). Wolf discussed the need (Broussard & Northup, 1995; Dufrene, Dog-
forappliedbehavior analyststorecruit consum- gett, Henington, & Watson, 2007; Sasso et al.,
ers’ feedback to determine whether behavioral 1992). Sasso et al. (1992), for example, noted
procedures are socially acceptable. changes in social acceptability ratings of
Since the publication of Wolf’s (1978) functional assessment methods, as measured
article, a substantial body of literature has by the Treatment Acceptability Rating Form–
assessed the social acceptability of behavioral Revised (TARF-R; Reimers & Wacker, 1992;
interventions, usually by administering ques- Wacker et al., 1998), after two teachers were
tionnaires (see Miltenberger, 1990, for a trained to implement descriptive assessments
review). For example, Reimers and Wacker andfunctional(experimental)analysesinschool
(1992) administered questionnaires to parents settings. Although the teachers rated the social
of children who received behavioral interven- acceptability of both assessment approaches as
tions in an outpatient clinic. Results showed high, their ratings of the functional analysis
that parents who rated procedures as most increased after they had directly implemented
acceptableweremorelikelytoshowcompliance the functional analysis procedures.
at follow-up visits. These findings suggest that The functional analysis, which involves
measures of social acceptability may correlate systematic manipulation of environmental
with consumers’ acceptance and use of recom- events,istheonlyfunctionalassessmentmethod
mended interventions. thatprovidesan empiricaldemonstration ofthe
function of problem behavior (Hanley, Iwata,
& McCord, 2003). Although hundreds of
The study reported in this paper contributed towards
the first author’s doctoral dissertation and was supported studies have established the clinical utility of
by grants from the Economic and Social Research the functional analysis, relatively little is known
Council,United KingdomandRemedi.
aboutitssocialacceptability,particularlyamong
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Paul Langthorne, who is now at the School parents. Because a functional analysis may
of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, evoke problem behavior (e.g., self-injury), it is
Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom (e-mail:
unclear whether consumers view the clinical
[email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-403 benefit of this approach as outweighing its
403
404 PAUL LANGTHORNE and PETER MCGILL
potential risk. If functional analysis procedures analysis methods, and reviewed the specific
are not socially acceptable, their use may be antecedents and consequences provided in each
restricted in applied settings, leading to the condition. Participants were offered the oppor-
adoption of less effective but more socially tunity to watch an instructional video on
acceptable alternatives. Therefore, the purpose functional analysis methodology (Functional
of the current study was to examine parent and Analysis: A Guide for Understanding Challenging
teacher ratings of the social acceptability of Behavior, 2005). Only four of the 18 people
functional analysis procedures. who received the questionnaire chose to watch
the video.
Functional analysis procedures were similar
METHOD
to those described by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer,
Participants
Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994), with
Eighteen people (14 parents and four teach- some modifications. A no-interaction condition
ers),whosechildrenorstudentshadparticipated was used instead of an alone condition, and
in functional analyses, were sent a questionnaire tangible and social avoidance conditions were
regarding the social acceptability of the proce- used. All sessions lasted 5 min, and each
dures. Of those, 13 (10 parents and three
condition was replicated at least three times.
teachers)returnedthequestionnairesandthereby
Based on parental preference, functional anal-
tookpartinthestudy.Eightofthechildrenhada
yses were conducted in a room at the child’s
primarydiagnosisofFragileXsyndrome,andsix
school (six children) or home (eight children).
had a primary diagnosis of Smith-Magenis
Teachers were invited to the stakeholder
syndrome.Allchildrenexhibitedmultipleforms
meeting (and qualified for participation in the
of problem behavior (range, 3 to 14) that were
study) in cases in which functional analyses
targetedinthefunctionalanalysis,includingself-
were conducted at school. Parents and teachers
injury(n513),aggression(n511),destructive
were told they could observe the functional
behavior(n511),noncompliance(n52),and
analyses and could request copies of video
motor stereotypy (n 5 1).
footage of the functional analyses. Of those
functional analyses conducted at home, five
Measurement
parents directly observed parts of the functional
The social acceptability of functional analysis
analysisthroughthewindowofadoor;allother
procedures was measured using a modified
parents were nearby but were unable to observe
version of the TARF-R. Items on the form
directly.Ofthosefunctionalanalysesconducted
were revised so that questions referred to
at school, three teachers directly observed parts
functional analysis rather than to treatment,
of the functional analysis through the window
and only those items that were relevant to
of a door. Two parents requested copies of the
functionalanalysiswereincluded.Themodified
video footage.
form contained nine items (Table 1), and
After functional analyses had been complet-
participants rated each item using a Likert scale
ed,allparticipantsreceivedawrittenreportthat
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
summarized results and interpretation of their
Procedure child’sorstudent’sfunctionalanalysisandsome
All participants attended a stakeholder meet- basic recommendations for intervention (e.g.,
ing before functional analyses were completed. functional communication training, noncontin-
During this meeting, the first author noted the gent reinforcement). Participants were given a
rationale for conducting a functional analysis, copy of the modified TARF-R and were asked
described the advantages and risks of functional to return it anonymously in a prepaid envelope
SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS 405
Table 1
Social Acceptability ofFunctionalAnalysis Procedures
Item Question M Range
1 Ifindthisapproachtobeanacceptablewayofassessingmychild’schallengingbehavior. 3.85 2to5
2 Iwouldbewillingforthisproceduretobeusedagaintoassessmychild’schallengingbehavior. 4.23 4to5
3 Ibelieveitwouldbeacceptabletousethisassessmentwithoutmychild’sconsent. 3.38 2to5
4 Iliketheproceduresusedinthisassessment. 4.08 3to5
5 Ibelievethisassessmentislikelytobeeffectiveinidentifyingthefactorsthatcausemychild’schallenging 3.77 2to5
behavior.
6 Ibelievemychildexperienceddiscomfortduringtheassessment. 2.31 1to4
7 Ibelievetheassessmentislikelytoresultinpermanentimprovementinmychild’schallengingbehavior. 3.00 2to4
8 Ibelieveitwouldbeacceptabletousethisassessmentwithpeoplewhocannotchooseassessmentsfor 3.69 2to4
themselves.
9 OverallIhadapositivereactiontothisassessment. 4.15 3to5
Note. All items scored 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In all teacher forms, the words ‘‘my child’s’’ were
replacedwith‘‘the child’s.’’
to the first author. The only identifying improvement in the child’s behavior (M 5
information provided on the form was whether 3.0, range, 2 to 4).
the participant was a parent or a teacher. The current study provided preliminary data
on the social acceptability of functional analysis
methodology for parents and teachers. The
majority of participants reported the functional
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
analysis to be an acceptable means of assessing
Table 1 shows the mean and range of
thefunctionofproblembehavior,onethatdoes
responses made by participants for each item
not cause undue discomfort to the child, and
inthemodifiedTARF-R.InresponsetoItem1,
one that is likely to be effective in identifying
11 (87%) reported finding the assessment
the function served by the child’s behavior.
acceptable (i.e., rating of 4 or 5; M 5 3.85, These findings are encouraging because, in the
range, 2 to 5). In response to Item 9, all absence of such evidence, there is a danger that
participants reported having an overall positive less effective but more socially acceptable
reaction to the functional analysis procedures methods, such as indirect report, may be used
(M 5 4.15, range, 3 to 5) and, in response to in lieu of functional analysis.
Item 2, reported that they would be willing to Several limitations of the current study merit
have functional analysis procedures used again discussion. The parents of four children who
(M 5 4.23, range, 4 to 5). In response to Item took part in the functional analyses (and one
6, 10 participants (77%) did not report that teacher) did not return the questionnaire.
their child experienced undue discomfort as a Although the response rate for the study was
result of the functional analysis (M 5 2.31, relatively high, it is possible that nonresponders
range, 1 to 4). This score suggests that several may have rated the acceptability of functional
respondents acknowledged some degree of analyses differently. Second, because responses
discomfort for the child. In response to Item to the social acceptability questionnaire were
5, 10 participants (77%) reported that the anonymous, it is not possible to determine how
functional analysis was likely to be effective in many of those returning the questionnaire
identifyingthefunctionoftheirchild’sbehavior observed the functional analysis procedures
(i.e., M 5 3.77, range, 2 to 5). In response to either directly or via video. Therefore, some
Item 7, five participants (38%) reported that participants may have rated the social accept-
the assessment would lead to permanent ability of the functional analysis without
406 PAUL LANGTHORNE and PETER MCGILL
directly observing the procedures. Despite this mine the specific parameters, such as severity of
limitation, all participants did have access to the target behavior, treatment history, and
detailed information on the procedures. Third, direct observation of the assessment procedures,
our sample was relatively small and homoge- that influence social acceptability ratings of
nous; thus, the generality of our results remains functional analysis procedures (e.g., Sasso et al.,
to be determined. Indeed, the participants had 1992). Fourth, social acceptability measures
already consented to their children taking part shouldincludequestionsrelatedtootherfactors
inafunctionalanalysis andasaresultmayhave that might influence whether practitioners
been predisposed to find the procedures more adopt functional analysis methods (i.e., cost,
acceptable. Fourth, we did not assess the complexity). Finally, more objective measures
of social acceptability could be used, such as
influence of a number of potentially important
examining parental and teacher choice of
variables on social acceptability ratings, such as
different functional assessment methods.
the severity of the behavior or the point at
which the rating was made. Fifth, the measure
of social acceptability used in the current study REFERENCES
may have been less than optimal. For example,
Broussard,C.D.,&Northup,J.(1995).Anapproachto
participants had no basis on which to provide functional assessment and analysis of disruptive
an opinion on Item 7 (I believe the assessment behavior in regular education classrooms. School
PsychologyQuarterly, 10,151–164.
is likely to result in permanent improvement in
Desrochers,M.N.,Hile,M.G.,&Williams-Moseley,T.
my child’s challenging behavior) because no
L.(1997).Surveyoffunctionalassessmentprocedures
treatment had been implemented at the time usedwithindividualswhodisplaymentalretardation
and severe problem behaviors. American Journal on
the ratings were made. Sixth, it is possible that
MentalRetardation, 101,535–546.
ratings were biased by social desirability effects.
Dufrene, B., Doggett, R., Henington, C., & Watson, T.
Finally, we did not examine criticisms of (2007). Functional assessment and intervention for
disruptiveclassroombehaviorsinpreschoolandHead
functional analysis methods, such as the relative
Startclassrooms.JournalofBehavioralEducation,16,
cost and complexity (Desrochers, Hile, &
368–388.
Williams-Moseley, 1997; Ellingson, Miltenber- Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., & Long, E. S.
(1999). A survey of the use of functional assessment
ger, & Long, 1999).
procedures in agencies serving individuals with
The current study was a preliminary
developmental disabilities. Behavioral Interventions,
examination of the social acceptability of 14, 187–198.
Functional analysis: A guide for understanding challenging
functional analysis methods. Functional anal-
behavior.(2005).[DVD].Carbondale,IL:Centerfor
ysis is a hallmark of applied behavior analysis
Autism Spectrum Disorders, Southern Illinois Uni-
and holds many advantages over alternative versity.
methods of functional assessment (Hanley et Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003).
Functional analysis of problem behavior a review.
al., 2003). Barriers to the use of functional
JournalofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 36,147–185.
analysis in applied contexts should continue to Iwata,B.A.,Dorsey,M.F.,Slifer,K.J.,Bauman,K.E.,
be identified and brought under empirical & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional
analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior
investigation.
Analysis, 27, 197–209. (Reprinted from Analysis and
The current study could be extended in a Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20,
number of ways. First, one could compare the 1982)
Miltenberger, R. (1990).Assessment oftreatment accept-
social acceptability of functional analysis to
ability: A review of the literature. Topics in Early
other functional assessment methods. Second, ChildhoodSpecialEducation,10, 24–38.
researchers could evaluate social acceptability Reimers,T.M.,&Wacker,D.P.(1992).Acceptabilityof
behavioral treatments for children: Analog and
across a larger and more diverse group of
naturalistic evaluations by parents. School Psychology
consumers. Third, investigators could deter- Review,21,628–643.
SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS 407
Sasso,G.M.,Reimers,T.M.,Cooper,L.J.,Wacker,D., Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for
Berg,W.,Steege,M.,etal.(1992).Useofdescriptive subjective measurement or how applied behavior
and experimental analysis to identify the functional analysisisfindingitsheart.JournalofAppliedBehavior
properties of aberrant behavior in school settings. Analysis,11,203–214.
JournalofAppliedBehavior Analysis,25,809–821.
Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Harding, J. W., Derby, K.
M., Asmus, J. M., & Healy, A. (1998). Evaluation
and long-term treatment of aberrant behavior dis-
played by young children with developmental Received July31, 2009
disabilities. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Final acceptanceJuly 15,2010
19,260–266. Action Editor,Eileen Roscoe